Skip to Content
Download as PDF

50 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2001, Canada

Journals of the Senate

1st Session, 37th Parliament


Issue 84

Monday, December 17, 2001
2:00 p.m.

The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker


The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe, Wilson

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, *Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, *Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe, Wilson

PRAYERS

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Some Honourable Senators made statements.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Bills

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wiebe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill C-37, An Act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations' claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

The Bill was then read the second time.

The Honourable Senator Wiebe moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Last Friday, December 14, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Kinsella, raised a point of order just before the adjournment of the Senate's sitting for that day. The point of order addressed several issues related to the Senate's consideration of the amendment of Senator Lynch-Staunton seeking to insert a five-year sunset clause into Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation of the Government which is now at third reading.

First of all, Senator Kinsella questioned the size of the majority that would be required for the decision on the question of the amendment of Senator Lynch-Staunton. This is because, as the Senator observed, the amendment is virtually identical to that which had been recommended by the Special Committee that studied the subject-matter of Bill C-36. Following some debate, the Senate adopted that first report of the Special Committee on November 22.

In Senator Kinsella's view, the Senate is now confronted by two reports that are inconsistent with each other. In addition to the first report of the Special Committee already adopted, the Senate has before it the third reading motion on Bill C-36 which is, as Senator Kinsella described it, the second report of the Special Committee which recommended no amendments to Bill C-36. Under our rules, this report was adopted automatically. In order to deal with the third reading of Bill C-36, Senator Kinsella contends that the decision on the first report of the Special Committee would have to be set aside, it would have to be rescinded. To do this properly under our rules, he argued, would require a vote of two thirds of the Senators present in the Chamber.

To buttress his case further, Senator Kinsella spoke of the underlying principles of our parliamentary system and the balance accorded the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority. Senator Kinsella referred to resolutions of the British House of Commons dating back to 1604 and 1610. In addition, the Senator took note of the fact rule 63 dates back to 1915 and is, consequently, of long standing. Senator Kinsella also supported his contention by observing that Senate practices provide for different levels of support depending on the nature of the decision. Beyond simple majority and the two-thirds majority, there is also the unanimity requirement for certain requests such as one to change the recorded vote of a Senator. Finally, Senator Kinsella cited references to parliamentary authorities and to a decision made by a previous Speaker of the Senate in 1991.

For his part, the Deputy Leader of the Government, Senator Robichaud, disagreed with the case presented by Senator Kinsella. As Senator Robichaud explained, the first report of the Special Committee dealt with the subject matter of Bill C-36. The objective of the subject matter review was to make known certain views of the Senate to the House of Commons while the bill was still in the other place. The work of the Special Committee was successful in that amendments adopted in the other place were based, in part, on some of its recommendations. Now, according to Senator Robichaud, the Senate is seized of Bill C-36 itself as amended by the other place. Following second reading, the bill was studied by the Special Committee which subsequently presented its report.

In Senator Robichaud's view, if the position of Senator Kinsella were to be followed, it would render almost impossible any pre-study of a bill, since the Senate would be bound by the recommendations made by the committee. According to Senator Robichaud's analysis, the two exercises, the pre-study of a bill and the consideration of the bill itself, are separate procedures and the Senate could not have intended to be constrained in its review of the bill by any approved pre-study.

In a rebuttal, Senator Kinsella stated that the problem arises in this case because the Senate adopted the first report of the Special Committee and thus pronounced itself with respect to the recommendations contained in that report. Accordingly, the Senate cannot pronounce itself again, based on the same question rule, without rescinding its previous decision which requires a two-thirds vote under rule 63.

I wish to thank the Deputy Leaders for their views on this point of order. I have reviewed the Debates of last Friday, the parliamentary authorities, and the history of Senate rules and practices. I have also searched for any precedents that might be useful to my understanding of this particular case. I am now ready to rule on this challenging point of order.

Let me begin by stating that I think the Senator Kinsella has raised an interesting issue. Rule 63(1) is quite clear. It states that "a motion shall not be made which is the same in substance as any question which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or other decision on such question has been rescinded....'' Accordingly, the Senate should not consider the same matter a second time in the same session if it has already pronounced on it. This rule is used not just by the Senate, but by many other parliamentary bodies as well including the other place. As Senator Kinsella explained, the underlying principle dates back centuries to the British House of Commons.

That being said, however, I believe that the Senate has never treated pre-study as a procedure subject to the same question rule. Pre-study has been a feature of Senate practice for more than thirty years. It was a device developed originally by the late Senator Salter Haydon, the long-time Chair of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee. Its purpose was to allow the Senate more time to examine bills, particularly complex or controversial bills, while accommodating the broad legislative time-table of the Government. At the same time, it permitted Senators greater input into the legislative process by allowing the work of the Senate to have some influence on the study of a bill while it was still in the other place. This is precisely what happened with regard to the study of this bill. Certain recommendations of the Special Committee were incorporated into the original version of Bill C-36 while it was still in the possession of the other place. Thus, the work of the Special Committee on the pre-study of the bill was not without effect.

Applying the logic of Senator Kinsella strictly to the circumstances now before us, it seems to me that the problem is far greater than the one he made out. If the same question rule is to be applied vigorously, it affects more than just the amendment of Senator Lynch-Staunton and the third reading of Bill C-36. It affects the entire proceedings of the bill from the moment it was introduced in the Senate. The first report of the Special Committee, it could be argued, dealt with the subject matter of Bill C-36 and made numerous recommendations that were subsequently adopted by the Senate. Thus, the Senate has pronounced itself with respect to the entire contents of what is now Bill C-36. Under the terms of the same question rule, understood in this restrictive way, the Senate should not reconsider Bill C-36 at all. I do not believe, however, that this is the intent of the rule.

Senator Kinsella noted that the 1610 resolution of the British House of Commons enunciated a principle with respect to legislation "That no bill of the same substance be brought in the same session.'' This has also been a part of our practice since Confederation. It is my view that this principle has not in fact been violated with respect to the consideration of Bill C-36. The pre-study of the bill was a preliminary stage of examination that was not intended to be definitive and that was also distinct from any subsequent proceedings related to the review of the bill itself. This is critical to the question at hand. According to Erskine May, the 22nd edition at page 334, "a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again.'' Any decision taken with respect to a pre-study phase of legislation can not be the last word on the subject.

To take the contrary position would fly in the face of other practices followed with respect to the legislative process. When, for example, the Senate amends a House of Commons bill and it is returned to the Senate with a message rejecting the amendment, the Senate is not precluded from either dropping its amendment or changing it, despite having already taken a decision on it.

I would concede that most reports dealing with pre-study have not been adopted by the Senate. This is because the vast majority of these pre-study reports have been tabled. With respect to Bill C-36, the first report of the Special Committee was tabled; however, it was subsequently adopted by motion from the floor. Does this make a difference? In my view, for the reasons that I have already given, it may call into question the same question rule, but it does not actually constitute a violation of it. There is a precedent to support my interpretation. It occurred in 1992 and involved a bill on telecommunications, Bill C-62. That bill had been the object of a pre-study the report of which was subsequently adopted. As with Bill C-36, the pre-study report on Bill C-62 had an impact on the study of the bill in the House of Commons, even though not all of the pre-study recommendations were incorporated into it. When the bill was at third reading in the Senate, an amendment was proposed to include a missing portion of a recommendation that had only partially been accepted in the House of Commons. In the end, the amendment was negatived. The result, however, is not the principle point of this case. Rather, it is that the pre-study report with its numerous recommendations and the third reading debate were implicitly recognized to be two separate, although related, proceedings. As one would expect, the pre-study report certainly informed the debate on the bill, but it did not limit the course of that debate nor did it determine its outcome. They were treated as two different and separate procedures.

It is my ruling that a case has not been made on the point of order. Rule 63 does not apply to Bill C-36 and there is no need to rescind any decision of the Senate.

DEFERRED DIVISION

At 3:00 p.m., pursuant to the Order adopted December 14, 2001, the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin to the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, for the third reading of Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, as amended.

The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, that the Bill, as amended, be not now read a third time but that it be further amended in clause 110, on page 113, by replacing line 29 with the following:

"(2) When the youth justice court, on application of the Attorney General, determines that the public interest will best be served and that the rehabilitation of the young person will not be compromised, subsection (1) does not apply''.

The motion in amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Comeau, Doody, Johnson, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch- Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Prud'homme, Rivest, Roche, Spivak, Stratton, Wilson—22

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Austin, Banks, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Fraser , Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Graham, Hubley, Jaffer, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, Léger, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin, Poy, Robichaud, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Stollery, Taylor, Watt, Wiebe—47

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Nil

Bills

Orders No. 7 and 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, for the third reading of Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, as amended.

Debate.

DEFERRED DIVISION

At 3:30 p.m., pursuant to the Order adopted December 14, 2001, the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton to the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended on page 183, by adding after line 28 the following:

"Expiration

147. (1) The provisions of this Act, except those referred to in subsection (2), cease to be in force five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 10, to subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 12, to subsection 13(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, as enacted by section 88, or to the provisions of this Act that enable Canada to fulfill its commitments under the conventions referred to in the definition "United Nations operation'' in subsection 2(2) and in the definition "terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 4.''.

The motion in amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Comeau, Doody, Johnson, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch- Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pitfield, Prud'homme, Rivest, Roche, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk, Wilson—24

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Austin, Bacon, Banks, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hubley, Jaffer, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, Léger, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Phalen, Poulin, Poy, Robichaud, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Stollery, Taylor, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe—49

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Nil

Bills

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, for the third reading of Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, as amended.

After debate,

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that the Bill, as amended, be not now read a third time but that it be further amended, in clause 2,

(a) on page 2, by adding, immediately before line 3, the following:

"2. (1) An object of this Act is for the law of Canada to be in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Act shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best assures the attainment of this object.''; and

(b) by renumbering subclauses 2 (1) to (3) as (2) to (4) and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

The question being put on the motion in amendment,

Pursuant to Rule 67(2), a recorded division was deferred to 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism.

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 146, on page 183,

(a) by adding after line 19 the following:

"Oversight and Report

146. (1) Within 90 days after this Act receives royal assent, Parliament shall appoint an officer of Parliament to monitor, as appropriate, the exercise of the duties and functions provided in this Act, excluding the powers and duties of the Information Commissioner under section 69.1 of the Access to Information Act, as enacted by section 87 of this Act, the powers and duties of the Privacy Commissioner under section 70.1 of the Privacy Act, as enacted by section 104 of this Act and the powers and duties of the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by subsection 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

(2) The officer referred to in subsection (1) shall table in both Houses of Parliament, annually or more frequently, as appropriate, a report on the exercise of the powers and duties provided in this Act, except those excluded under subsection (1).''; and

(b) by renumbering clause 146 as clause 147, and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

Debate.

DEFERRED DIVISION

At 4:30 p.m., pursuant to the Order adopted December 14, 2001, the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carney, P.C., to the motion of the Honourable Senator Corbin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carney, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended, in clause 1,

(a) on page 1,

(i) by adding after line 14 the following:

" "removal of boundary waters in bulk'' means the removal of water from boundary waters and taking it outside the water basin in which the boundary waters are located

(a) by means of any natural or artificial diversion, such as a pipeline, canal, tunnel, aqueduct or channel; or

(b) by any other means by which more than 50,000 L of boundary waters are taken outside the water basin per day.'', and

(ii) by replacing lines 24 and 25 with the following:

"sanitary purposes.'';

(b) on page 2,

(i) by replacing line 1 with the following:

"12. Except in accordance with a licence,'',

(ii) by deleting lines 11 and 12,

(iii) by replacing lines 14 to 17 with the following:

"use or divert boundary waters by the removal of boundary waters in bulk.'',

(iv) by replacing lines 18 to 26 with the following:

"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) and the application of the treaty, the removal of boundary waters in bulk is deemed, given the cumulative effect of removals of boundary waters outside their water basins, to affect the natural level or flow of the boundary waters on the other side of the international boundary and to have a negative environmental impact.'',

(v) by replacing lines 27 and 28 with the following:

"(3) Subsection (1) applies only in respect of the portion of the following water basins that is located in Canada:

(a) Great Lakes — St. Lawrence Basin, being composed of the area of land that drains into the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River;

(b) Hudson Bay Basin, being composed of the area of land that drains into Hudson Bay; and

(c) St. John — St. Croix Basin, being composed of the area of land that drains into the St. John River or the St. Croix River.'', and

(vi) by replacing lines 29 and 30 with the following:

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to boundary waters used

(a) as ballast in a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, for the operation of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or for people, animals or products on the vehicle, vessel or aircraft; or

(b) for firefighting or humanitarian purposes in short-term situations in a non-commercial project.'';

(c) on page 4,

(i) by deleting lines 13 to 22, and

(ii) by renumbering paragraphs 21(1)(e) to (m) as paragraphs 21(1)(a) to (i), and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

The motion in amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Buchanan, Comeau, Doody, Forrestall, Johnson, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Rivest, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk—22

NAYS

The Honourable Senators—Les honorables sénateurs

Austin, Bacon, Banks, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, Léger, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin, Poy, Robichaud, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sparrow, Stollery, Taylor, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe, Wilson—52

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Prud'homme, Roche—2

Bills

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C.

Debate.

DEFERRED DIVISION

At 5:30 p.m., and pursuant to Rule 66(3), the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the Honourable Senator Finnerty, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following division:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Austin, Bacon, Banks, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, LaPierre, Léger, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Phalen, Poulin, Poy, Prud'homme, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Stollery, Taylor, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe—53

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Buchanan, Comeau, Forrestall, Johnson, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Rivest, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk—21

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Nil

Accordingly, the Bill was read the second time.

The Honourable Senator Finnerty moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a third reading at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Bills

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C.

Debate.

________________________________________________________

Pursuant to Rule 13(1), the Speaker left the Chair to resume the same at 8:00 p.m.

The sitting resumed.

________________________________________________________

With leave,

The Senate reverted to Government Notices of Motions.

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C.:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at 9:00 a.m.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

________________________________________________________

Ordered, That, notwithstanding the Order adopted earlier this day with respect to the deferred recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk to Bill C-7, the division take place at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Bills

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 146, on page 183,

(a) by adding after line 19 the following:

"Oversight and Report

146. (1) Within 90 days after this Act receives royal assent, Parliament shall appoint an officer of Parliament to monitor, as appropriate, the exercise of the duties and functions provided in this Act, excluding the powers and duties of the Information Commissioner under section 69.1 of the Access to Information Act, as enacted by section 87 of this Act, the powers and duties of the Privacy Commissioner under section 70.1 of the Privacy Act, as enacted by section 104 of this Act and the powers and duties of the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by subsection 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

(2) The officer referred to in subsection (1) shall table in both Houses of Parliament, annually or more frequently, as appropriate, a report on the exercise of the powers and duties provided in this Act, except those excluded under subsection (1).''; and

(b) by renumbering clause 146 as clause 147, and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Beaudoin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Corbin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

After debate,

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended, in clause 1, on page 5, by adding after line 12 the following:

"(3) The Governor in Council may only make a regulation under subsection (1) where the Minister has caused the proposed regulation to be laid on the same day before each House of Parliament and

(a) both Houses of Parliament have adopted resolutions authorizing the making of the regulation, or

(b) neither House, within thirty sitting days after the proposed regulation has been laid, has adopted a resolution objecting to the making of the regulation.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(b), "sitting day'' means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.''.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Spivak, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

OTHER BUSINESS

Senate Public Bills

Orders No. 1 to 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Reports of Committees

Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Consideration of the Tenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (budget—release of additional funds (study on the state of the health care system in Canada)) presented in the Senate on December 11, 2001.

The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the Report be adopted.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Consideration of the Eleventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (budget—release of additional funds (study on Canadian identity)) presented in the Senate on December 11, 2001.

The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, that the Report be adopted.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Order No. 5 to 7 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Other

Order No. 37 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, seconded by the Honourable Senator Léger:

That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada recognize the date of August 15th as Fête nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes, given the Acadian people's economic, cultural and social contribution to Canada.

Debate.

________________________________________________________

The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella:

That, pursuant to Rule 38, no later than 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of all stages of the following Bills now before the Senate:

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act;

Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts; and

Bill C-45, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following division:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Graham, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kinsella, LaPierre, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Phalen, Poulin, Poy, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Taylor, Tunney, Watt, Wiebe—55

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Di Nino, Nolin, Prud'homme—3

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Stratton—1

Other

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, seconded by the Honourable Senator Léger:

That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada recognize the date of August 15th as Fête nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes, given the Acadian people's economic, cultural and social contribution to Canada.

After debate,

With leave of the Senate and pursuant to Rule 30, the motion was modified to read as follows:

That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada recognize the date of August 15th as Fête nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes, given the Acadian people's economic, cultural and social contribution to Canada; and

That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

The question being put on the motion, as modified, it was adopted.

Orders No. 31, 38 and 36 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to three diseases which are sweeping the developing world and which draw many to ask whether intellectual property rights over patented medicines have not taken precedence over the protection of human life.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator LaPierre for the Honourable Senator Morin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Jaffer, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Orders No. 7, 16, 11, 29, and 33 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Roche, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:

That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada avoid involvement and support for the development of a National Missile Defence (NMD) system that would run counter to the legal obligations enshrined in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which has been a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international efforts on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for almost thirty years,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that the subject-matter of this motion be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Defence and Security for study and report back to the Senate.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.

Orders No. 32 (inquiry), 73 (motion), 26 (inquiry), 74, 44 (motions), 8 (inquiry), 82 (motion), 13 (inquiry) and 41 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.

ADJOURNMENT

The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C.:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

(Accordingly, at 10:08 p.m. the Senate was continued until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.)

________________________________________________________

Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

The name of the Honourable Senator Biron substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Sparrow (December 14).

Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce

The name of the Honourable Senator Poulin substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Mahovlich (December 14).

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

The name of the Honourable Senator Fraser substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Christensen (December 14).

Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

The names of the Honourable Senators Léger, Fairbairn and Kirby substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Pépin, Milne and Grafstein (December 14).